(3) Is the pilot advertising his/her services to perform any task using an ultralight” If so, Part 103 does not apply.

(4) Is the pilot receiving any form of compensation for the performance of a task using an ultralight vehicle? If so, Part 103 does not apply.

AC 103.7

Fascinating. I have a feeling it would be better for our sport if we kept our heads buried in the sand and payed no attention to these details and certainly did not talk about them on the internet. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The FAA is probably reading this thread right now. Maybe they forgot about something they wrote back in 1984. Until we just now reminded them of it.

One only needs to take a close look at some recent opinions issued regarding ultralight flight in "Class E extensions" to Class D airspace, to understand that much (or at least some) of what comes from the FAA is illogical, inconsistent, and uninformed by a good understanding of the nature and intent of past rules. But, this may be the one case where they come to their senses and apply a solid understanding of the original intent of the regulations, to put an end to much of the tandem ride towing operations etc-- let's hope not.

(3) Is the pilot advertising his/her services to perform any task using an ultralight” If so, Part 103 does not apply.

(4) Is the pilot receiving any form of compensation for the performance of a task using an ultralight vehicle? If so, Part 103 does not apply.

AC 103.

Wow!

Fellow Feathers Ft Funston wrote:Notice to all Funston Tandem Instructors: A Non-compensation document must be filled out and placed in the storage locker drop box prior to the tandem flight. Failure to comply will result in no less than revocation of Fort Funston tandem privileges.

GGNRA-NPS Jessica Carter wrote:Establishing a hang gliding segment under the GGNRA CUA (Commercial Use Authorization) program would threaten Fellow Feather’s exclusive use of Fort Funston as a hang gliding site. Per NPS regulations and policy, the National Park Service cannot limit the number of entities issued CUAs for an approved commercial activity with competition. An unlimited number of CUAs could have an impact on recreational hang gliding activity on site if competition increased for access to the finite area for launching and landing.

It is refreshing to know someone in the government knows what they are doing.

You are all missing the point about FSDO employee I mentioned.
It was just a casual observation on his part that if the FAA were to re-eval part 103 we would likely lose it.
I agree with him.
I never said he was a power tripping government employee, and he wasn't. We were just talking about it casually.

Part 103 is awesome. I would rather lose all tandem hang glider rides than lose part 103.

Part 103 is awesome. I would rather lose all tandem hang glider rides than lose part 103.

But see, here again you are alluding to your fear that it's one or the other, ie, the sky will likely fall.
The FAA is thankfully guided by level-headed individuals and I would hope that the FAA believes there would be some serious consequences for themselves and the industry if part 103 were dissolved.

It is my understanding that the FAA has granted an exemption for tandem Hg and PG flight instruction. Is it common knowledge that there must be a measure of instruction while executing these tandems? Pretty sure.
Some tandem instructional flights don't result in students returning, while there are quite a few tandem instructional flights that DO result in students returning for additional lessons.

My understanding is that the current tandem exemption also makes some reference to sport or recreational tandem flying. Mark Forbes has posted about this in the past. This link may help you find the information-- http://www.ushpa.org/page/faa-exemption-4721 .

Yes both people must have some sort of USHPA pilot rating. This is true regardless of whether the flight is for recreational or instructional purposes. (The more experienced person must have a higher level of pilot rating if the flight is for "instructional" purposes rather than for "recreational" purposes; specifically he/she must be a "tandem instructor" rather than a "tandem pilot".) I was going to post that no special skills are needed to get the most basic level of USHPA pilot rating so one person can still be a essentially a passenger regardless of whether the flight is for "instructional" or "recreational" purposes. However looking at the USHPA website it looks like the lowest level of rating is H-1 which requires a demonstrated ability to fly in a straight line. (See http://www.ushpa.org/page/ratings-and-s ... troduction ) . So now I'm a little confused. Even genuine training operations are not legitimate in the eyes of the FAA if the student has not yet demonstrated the ability to fly in a straight line? I am surprised to hear that that is the case, if it really is. Maybe someone can straighten me out.

In either case, whether a flight is for "instructional" or "recreational" purposes, it seems possible that the FAA may someday decide to take a dim view of pilots offering their services (in exchange for compensation) to Mr or Ms Joe Q Public, who wasn't seeking out a hang gliding adventure until he/ she saw a flyer in the hotel-- at least if the FAA's draconian attitude toward private (non-commercial) G.A. pilots advertising their services in exchange for any form of compensation, even just the passenger picking up some portion of the fuel cost, is any indication--

But see, here again you are alluding to your fear that it's one or the other, ie, the sky will likely fall.
The FAA is thankfully guided by level-headed individuals and I would hope that the FAA believes there would be some serious consequences for themselves and the industry if part 103 were dissolved.

It is my understanding that the FAA has granted an exemption for tandem Hg and PG flight instruction. Is it common knowledge that there must be a measure of instruction while executing these tandems? Pretty sure.
Some tandem instructional flights don't result in students returning, while there are quite a few tandem instructional flights that DO result in students returning for additional lessons.

My understanding is that the current tandem exemption also makes some reference to sport or recreational tandem flying. Mark Forbes has posted about this in the past. This link may help you find the information-- http://www.ushpa.org/page/faa-exemption-4721 . https://www.ushpa.org/page/download.aspx?DocKey=502
Yes both people must have some sort of USHPA pilot rating. This is true regardless of whether the flight is for recreational or instructional purposes. (The more experienced person must have a higher level of pilot rating if the flight is for "instructional" purposes rather than for "recreational" purposes; specifically he/she must be a "tandem instructor" rather than a "tandem pilot".) I was going to post that no special skills are needed to get the most basic level of USHPA pilot rating so one person can still be a essentially a passenger regardless of whether the flight is for "instructional" or "recreational" purposes. However looking at the USHPA website it looks like the lowest level of rating is H-1 which requires a demonstrated ability to fly in a straight line. (See http://www.ushpa.org/page/ratings-and-s ... troduction ) . So now I'm a little confused. Even genuine training operations are not legitimate in the eyes of the FAA if the student has not yet demonstrated the ability to fly in a straight line? I am surprised to hear that that is the case, if it really is. Maybe someone can straighten me out.

I don't believe the sky is falling quite as fast as some people might think. If the powers that be at the FAA had been terribly concerned about tandem instruction in hang gliders, they could have simply wrapped it into the Sport Pilot legislation. I think a good portion of the abuse of powered ultralights was the way a number of the exemptions were managed: you gave them x dollars, you were an instructor. Then the "instructors" simply flew as if they had a two place certificated plane. And the "ultralights" themselves didn't just miss the weight limit by a pound or two.
USHPA has always emphasized the instructional aspect of tandems.

I'll agree that operations with lots of naive tourists being pumped through daily could be a problem, but the FAA does have the ability to treat things on a case-by-case basis. That doesn't mean that they couldn't come down like a ton of bricks on all Part 103 flying, but It doesn't seem likely to me. They very pragmatically made it legal for private pilots to tow for compensation. It's reasonable, but it still surprised the heck out of me. And without that, a lot of the hang glider towing operations would probably not be operating.

Ok, thanks. I knew that once. I guess I just forgot, and they weren't mentioned on the particular USHPA link I checked (as noted in previous post).

Re student ratings: clearly they are aimed in large part at making sure the tandem student pilot has been "educated" enough to know what NOT to do, to avoid crashing the tandem glider. In that particular limited sense, I guess you could certainly say that virtually all tandem students and passengers do receive a certain amount of education / instruction!

Steve

"12-02.05 Student Hang Gliding Rating (H0)
A. Requirements for Student Pilots flying tandem
A Student pilot has the basic knowledge required to understand and accept the risks of flying as a
tandem passenger on a hang glider. This includes:
1. A basic understanding of the process involved in launching, flying and landing modern
hang gliders.
2. An understanding that a hang glider is controlled through weight shift and that control is
hampered by holding any part of the vehicle other than where the Instructor indicates.
3. An understanding that to foot launch a tandem flight, the Student and the Instructor must
run efficiently together to produce airspeed to launch.
4. An understanding that the Student must pay attention to the Instructor’s commands at all
times and be capable of carrying out those instructions.
5. An understanding of the reasons for, techniques used, and deployment of a backup
parachute.
6. Must be advised that tandem flights on a hang glider is conducted under an exemption
granted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the glider is not certified for
tandem flight by the FAA
B. Recommended Operating Limitations for Student Pilots flying solo
1. It is highly recommended that all flights be made under the direct supervision of a
USHPA Certified Basic or Advanced Instructor. "

Steve

Last edited by aeroexperiments on Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

My first exploratory HG flight at a small flight park was just this: I signed my life away, signed a 30-day USHPA-approved student application, and I was automatically an official ushpa student. Could I fly a straight line while on tandem in free flight? Yeah, it was pretty easy. I even did a figure-8 or two.

Before these two, back-to-back aerotow tandem flights, I was not completely sure that I wanted to pursue HG, but HG did hold a large fascination for me. After those two flights, I was sold. However, I did not return to that same flight park, but went to LMFP instead, because talking to other former students, they all believed my progression would be better and faster if I could spend at least seven days at a time immersed in learning, rather than only on good-weather weekends alone. I was fortunate to have studied weather patterns beforehand, and waited for later autumn, and had perfect H1/H2 weather conditions for the two separate weeks that I planned for.

Anyway, I truly believe that tandem flights are very beneficial to the new HG student.
I think that all this talk that is attacking tandem HG/PG flights is only from those that do not particularly like the modern ushpa and the large annual fees for membership, and so wish to reduce the supposed risk overhead, thereby reducing their own fee expenditures. Most likely for this reason, they will not understand, or refuse to see the value that tandem flights give to the development of new HG students.

As any instructor (HG, math, sciences, etc.) will understand, good instruction and communication is a learned skill. An good instructor is always learning better methods of communication to his/her students. One valuable aspect of LMFP is that if the student has not the best experience with one instructor, there are plenty of other instructors that may be better matched to that student. There are newer instructors that can do a half-way decent job of instruction, and then there are well-seasoned, highly-tempered instructors that will expediently and positively guide the student. I always sought the experienced instructors. Especially the advice of the tandem instructor pilots. Those guys know their stuff. They need to in order to execute their tandem flights day in, day out, without accident or incidents. I was consistently impressed by the tandem pilots' professionalism. I doubt that under the scrutiny of heavier rule interpretation and enforcement, we would have these excellent learning opportunities available to us.

I'll agree that operations with lots of naive tourists being pumped through daily could be a problem, but the FAA does have the ability to treat things on a case-by-case basis. That doesn't mean that they couldn't come down like a ton of bricks on all Part 103 flying, but It doesn't seem likely to me. They very pragmatically made it legal for private pilots to tow for compensation. It's reasonable, but it still surprised the heck out of me. And without that, a lot of the hang glider towing operations would probably not be operating.

Good points. Also I'm aware that USHPA puts a lot of effort into keeping the FAA informed on what we do -- FAA officials have been taken on tandems (at Wallaby I believe?), etc. It still kind of boggles my mind that the FAA is allowing any of this, giving the original intent of part 103, but I hope it continues.

I could not have said it better. How about training hills with unlimited access to revive the fun and spirit of hang gliding?
This is a sport too great to be crushed by idiocy!

This country is in desperate need of decent training hills. As a student and an instructor, it really sucked when we didn't have a hill facing the day's wind direction. And even for veterans, the bunny hill can be fun and confirm your skills are still sharp.
I will now brag. Few people have had as many training hill flights as me. My launches are consistently excellent. Landings a little less so--but I can fix that with a little more practice on a 50 foot hill. I'm a little rusty.

User mini profile

Cheesehead: Good news, a few years ago I got the Utah parks out of USHPA control, including North and South Side Point of the Mountain. I'm aware of a few more places opening up to the public as well. I am currently working on Ft. Funston and the rest of the National Park Lands; which, given they are *NATIONAL PARK* lands they are public lands. I am constantly surprised with the arrogance demonstrated by USHPA with the claimed ownership of lands and the sport of flying. I have a copy of the Ft. Funston Special Use Permit which gives you *USE* of the land. I have also noticed how the SUP violates 4 park laws and one federal law.